The 2009 Architect 50

Here are the top firms of the year.

The Largest Firms. The Giants. The Top 100, 200, 500.
If you’re a regular follower of architectural media, you’re no stranger
to their ever-proliferating firm rankings—rankings that are usually
based on the size of a workforce or on annual revenue. Why would Architect throw its hat into this already crowded ring?

Simply put, because size is just one, not-terribly-revealing measure of an architecture firm. We designed the Architect
50 quite simply to promote a more well-rounded definition of success.
The criteria for inclusion comprise a trifecta of critical goals for
every practice: profitability, sustainability, and design quality.

A
cynic might say that, by scoring firms based in part on profitability
(i.e., revenue per number of employees), we reward scrooges who run
their offices like sweatshops. Au contraire: We see profitability as an
essential counterweight to the “big firms” tilt of most rankings, a way
to recognize practices of any size whose good works rest on a bedrock of
financial health. That’s no small feat in these economically troubled
times.

Is it possible to excel in all three categories, to make
money by designing beautiful, green buildings? Yes, as you’ll see from
the scores in our lists of 1–10, 11–30, and 31–49. (A three-way tie
prevented us from ending with a perfect 5-0.) However, we also rank the
top 10 scorers in each individual category. There’s not much overlap
among them, meaning that a perfect score is not yet in sight.